DiscussMormonism.com

I was never a Scientologist or a Mormon, but like Chap my interest in Mormonism is kind of the successor to my interest in Scientology. Mormonism and Scientology are certainly different in many ways, but they also share some features. One of those common features, I realize now, is an epistemology which strongly emphasizes individual judgement and yet leads to rigid conformity.

Every Scientologist is supposed to seek their own confirmation of the movement's doctrines: "What's true is what's true for you." Scientology doesn't seem to go into much detail about exactly how members are supposed to recognize truth, however. Instead there are a lot of vague statements that encourage Scientologists to believe that their spiritual powers somehow allow them to perceive truth more accurately and more easily than ordinary people can. So in practice the slogan mainly means its converse: "Whatever strikes you as true must be true."

This is like telling kids swinging at T-ball that they've won the World Series. It makes the kids think they're great at baseball but it actually makes them bad at baseball because it teaches them that they don't have to work. Similarly the perverse result of Scientology's emphasis on individual discernment is to make Scientologists bad at discerning anything, because Scientologists learn to avoid real investigation and rely on quick emotional judgements. Those quick emotional judgements inevitably tend to follow the party line of their group.

Scientology is actually defined as something like "knowing how to know". The name was chosen just because it sounded good, but there was some kind of ironic justice in the choice, because "knowing how to know" really is what Scientology is all about. The problem is that Scientology's "knowing how to know" really means "learning not to learn".

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/QAnon

QAnon, also known as The Storm and The Great Awakening, is a conspiracy theory, popular meme,[5] and right wing fantasy about a "deep state" conspiracy against President Trump. Following on the heels of similar BS, such as Pizzagate (which occupies a small spot on the QAnon map below), it advances a fantastic web of deceit that wraps up Trumpism, deep state fearmongering, evil, Satanic pedophilia rings controlled by the Democratic Party, investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 US election, the Las Vegas shooting, and New World Order paranoia into a package easily and wholeheartedly promoted by internet cesspools and Alex Jones.[6][3] It originated from a series of incoherent posts on 4chan in 2017 by someone calling themselves Q.[7] The name is likely based on the US government's top secret Q clearance.Wikipedia's W.svg

I'm definitely interested in Gameover's examples of where Qanon has nailed some predictions. This is a good forum where skeptics will test a theory or proposition when presented, which is what I think about when we're talking about ex-Mormons. ExMo's, I believed (I'm really starting to reevaluate my stance on this after spending enough time here), due to their experiences with the cult have a tendency to regard fantastic claims with skepticism, as they should, so yeah. I'm hoping we can see what Gameover is talking about and then work any of the claims over to see where the truth may exist.

- Doc

GameOver wrote:I follow “Q” myself, albeit with healthy skepticism. I do so because it’s evident that he has inside information. He will cryptically post coming events that only an insider would know - long before the media has any knowledge of such events. The media keeps an eye on him too now, yet they are quick to discredit him as a conspiracy theory LARP of Trump’s. But they know he’s leaking advance knowledge of situations and coming events. “Q” stands for high level security clearance, and it’s believed to be a military operation.

“Q” has been wrong before. “Q” has said something will come to pass that never did, or did much later than expected. Sometimes he’s so cryptic, that one can never know what the heck he’s talking about. Nevertheless, I find the posts interesting and worth watching - again - with healthy skepticism.

The person who signs off as “Q+” is believed to be Trump himself.

You can judge for yourself at:

https://qmap.pub/

I have started following "Q" too and so have a great many of my friends and family (none of us are conspiracy nuts either ). It's actually pretty interesting and can be entertaining too.

It's definitely not a Mormon thing. I'm sure there are Mormons who are following "Q" though.

I am not a fanatic about it (as your friend seems to be, Simon), but it's been accurate about a lot of things I see playing out publicly. There are those who take anything to the extreme, but most "Q" followers I know don't fit that description. Maybe others have had a different experience, though.

One thing I'm really watching which will prove to me that it's at least somewhat legit are the claims that Trump is trying to get rid of the Federal Reserve and go back to the gold standard. I'm skeptical that he can accomplish this, so it's of interest to me.

Madison,

Would you mind sharing two or three examples where Q has nailed their predictions?

- Doc

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Madison,

Would you mind sharing two or three examples where Q has nailed their predictions?

- Doc

Hi Doctor

I am by no means a "Q" expert, but I know over the years of posts, they have been quite accurate regarding the Flynn legal case, also the Epstein and Weinstein cases. What was predicted with these have taken place (or are currently taking place). Also with what has transpired with the Jussie Smollett case has been extremely accurate (predictions or statements).

There's probably more....but those are a few off the top of my head! Many in my family (and friends) are much more into it than I am, so I can ask for more examples if you'd like when I see them.

Maybe I’ll google-fu Q and Weinstein. I think I’m looking for a specific example of a specific prediction that came true that can’t be classified as speculation through nebulous predictions because someone claims to have vague connections that can be shoehorned into a win for Q.

- Doc

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/02/podc ... heory.html

The above shows a bunch of Qanon supporters at Trump rallies. I can’t seem to find Qanon supporters showing up to Dem gatherings or rallies. Hrm. Here’s an article behind the guy really pushing Qanon stuff through social media:

https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-cons ... s-internet

tl;dr - Not a lot of accuracy on any front regarding Qanon’s statements or from their supporters.

- Doc

The Q-anon CT is, for me, evidence that the human brain is maladapted for our present circumstances. I think there is a realistic possibility that humans are an evolutionary dead-end that will be eliminated by the very things that caused them to survive in the long past. The patternicity and intentionality biases in our brains served us well on the African plains by helping us find food and avoid predators. But the flood of information available to us today makes it too easy to form unlimited patterns and infer intention behind them -- even in random data. We don't have hardware that makes it easy for us to distinguish meaningful patterns from coincidence. And so we have most of the same people that are Q believers rejecting actual patterns with meaning in the data that support the danger of increasing greenhouse gases.

More and more I'm tempted to conclude that humans are an evolutionary dead-end. The hard-wired features of our brains that gave us survival advantage in the past are working against our future survival.

I see nothing wrong in being interested in QAnon as a phenomenon. I’ve been following Scientology and Mormonism for several years, myself. Actually thinking there’s something to it is another matter, however.

Posting thousands of cryptic comments about current events that have only a few likely outcomes has been the stock in trade of charlatans since at least Nostradamus, because it’s bound to give a few things that you can claim as big hits while letting you duck responsibility for everything else. So real credibility is a very high bar.

Sufficient evidence can be persuasive even of very weird things. Quantum mechanics, for instance. You have to keep an open mind and be willing to listen to the evidence even when it goes against everything that you thought you knew. The bar, however, is high—and you have to have a wide open mind for mundane, unexciting explanations as well, not just the bizarre ones.

It’s easy to have a mind creative and open enough to consider that magic or wild conspiracies might be real. The rare and difficult feat is to imagine the tricks and illusions that no-one else will suspect. People who are quick to assume that the only way to account for whatever they’ve seen is that It Must All Be True—those are the unimaginative, closed-minded people who can’t face the challenge of unexpected alternatives.

Physics Guy wrote:I see nothing wrong in being interested in QAnon as a phenomenon. I’ve been following Scientology and Mormonism for several years, myself. Actually thinking there’s something to it is another matter, however.

Posting thousands of cryptic comments about current events that have only a few likely outcomes has been the stock in trade of charlatans since at least Nostradamus, because it’s bound to give a few things that you can claim as big hits while letting you duck responsibility for everything else. So real credibility is a very high bar.

Sufficient evidence can be persuasive even of very weird things. Quantum mechanics, for instance. You have to keep an open mind and be willing to listen to the evidence even when it goes against everything that you thought you knew. The bar, however, is high—and you have to have a wide open mind for mundane, unexciting explanations as well, not just the bizarre ones.

It’s easy to have a mind creative and open enough to consider that magic or wild conspiracies might be real. The rare and difficult feat is to imagine the tricks and illusions that no-one else will suspect. People who are quick to assume that the only way to account for whatever they’ve seen is that It Must All Be True—those are the unimaginative, closed-minded people who can’t face the challenge of unexpected alternatives.

True. See, e.g., psychics and astrologers.